Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> efficient (petrol),
I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on
the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7orqg$r33$1@news.ya.com...
>
> > For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> > efficient (petrol),
>
> I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
> available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven
more
> efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an
argument
> under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
> 6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine,
because
> of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
> most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun
on
> the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
> as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
>
Your message proves that you know little about either SAAB turbos or BMWs
and probably not much more about your Audi.
SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
similar displacement.
The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP and
torque than the BMW.
Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due to
their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive.
BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry
conditions.
Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are
available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's
hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad in
snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season
radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all
weather machine.
I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires. My
second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD car
and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
-Fred W
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:22:28 +0200, "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>> efficient (petrol),
>
>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance.
[snipped]
If the above isn't the victim of a typo, I invite you to take a look at the
torque vs rpm curves of biturbo 30v 2.7L audi engines and any straight-six NA
bmw engine you care to examine.
Clearly, you will be surprised...
/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd
>
>> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>> efficient (petrol),
>
>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance.
[snipped]
If the above isn't the victim of a typo, I invite you to take a look at the
torque vs rpm curves of biturbo 30v 2.7L audi engines and any straight-six NA
bmw engine you care to examine.
Clearly, you will be surprised...
/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
all is true except the bad weather BMW! I have a bimmer and live in
Montreal, the land of snow! I have no problems in bad weather (well very
very few problems to be more precise). All you need is a good set of
tires. but nothing beats the quattro in snow, i grant you that!
Imad
JP Roberts wrote:
>>For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>>efficient (petrol),
>>
>>
>
>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
>most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on
>the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
>as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
>
>
>
>
Montreal, the land of snow! I have no problems in bad weather (well very
very few problems to be more precise). All you need is a good set of
tires. but nothing beats the quattro in snow, i grant you that!
Imad
JP Roberts wrote:
>>For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>>efficient (petrol),
>>
>>
>
>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
>most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on
>the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
>as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
>
>
>
>
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
actually. i dont know anymore if all you said was true! But I DO know
what you said about the weather is NOT!
Imad
Imad Al-Ghouleh wrote:
> all is true except the bad weather BMW! I have a bimmer and live in
> Montreal, the land of snow! I have no problems in bad weather (well
> very very few problems to be more precise). All you need is a good set
> of tires. but nothing beats the quattro in snow, i grant you that!
> Imad
> JP Roberts wrote:
>
>>>For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>>>efficient (petrol),
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
>>most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on
>>the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
>>as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
>>
>>
>>
>>
what you said about the weather is NOT!
Imad
Imad Al-Ghouleh wrote:
> all is true except the bad weather BMW! I have a bimmer and live in
> Montreal, the land of snow! I have no problems in bad weather (well
> very very few problems to be more precise). All you need is a good set
> of tires. but nothing beats the quattro in snow, i grant you that!
> Imad
> JP Roberts wrote:
>
>>>For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>>>efficient (petrol),
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
>>most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on
>>the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
>>as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
>>
>>
>>
>>
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
> > I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
engines
> > available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven
> more
> > efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an
> argument
> > under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
> > 6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine,
> because
> > of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
> > most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun
> on
> > the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as
often
> > as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
> >
>
> SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
> similar displacement.
If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will
always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW
engines.
> The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP
and
> torque than the BMW.
And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on
acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
> Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
> other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
> provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
> SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
> than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that
easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
> All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
> designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round.
Their smoothness alone qualifies.
> BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due
to
> their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive.
Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I go
skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their chains.
I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in
really bad weather. Think of slopes uphill. The proper tyres will give you
more fun under very specific hyper-controlled conditions but can't do much
in real life winter driving on icy roads.
> BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry
> conditions.
Quite probably true, except for the by and large.
> Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are
> available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding roads
that are good fun.
> Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's
> hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad
in
> snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season
> radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all
> weather machine.
I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my
quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already
"wearing" now.
> I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
> and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires.
My
> second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD
car
> and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
> tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on tyres
for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear. The difference is you'll
have left your BMW parked when there was snow on the road, while I'll have
been driving my Quattro all year round.
JP Roberts
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
>
> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> efficient (petrol), although they do have some fine diesels, probably the
> best. But then if you don't like diesels, you're stuck. And the BMW servicing
> indicator must be a nuisance if you do your own servicing? I always have an
> image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of thing.
Are they too common, or do you simply notice them more than other cars?
Do a fun experiment and count the cars passing by on the freeway. Then
provide some figures. I can't speak for other countries, but in the
Netherlands
you'd lose count of the Peugeots, VWs, Fords and Opels before you count
a couple of BMWs. Yet, I *see* more BMWs (or expensive Mercs and Audis)
simply because they stand out more in traffic.
Same thing for the "Get out of my way" thing: a Golf or Peugeot that's
being pushy on the freeway would leave a less lasting impression on you
than that one shiny BMW.
I can't remember all the Renaults and Volvos and VW driving up to my
tailgate,
probably thinking, "yeah, I'm gonna show this BMW my car's
better/faster/whatever".
Very occasionally I see a BMW or an A3 do the same. Yet *those* times I can
remember.
People see what they wanna see.
Peter
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:29:56 +0200, JP Roberts <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
(someone wrote, but JP trimmed the address of,)
>> SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
>> similar displacement.
>
> If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will
> always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW
> engines.
I've never seen the word "thrash" in a scientific analysis of engine output
and fuel consumption. Perhaps you can point us to, you know, actual data
to back up your claim?
>> The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP
> and
>> torque than the BMW.
>
> And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on
> acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
You've never driven a Saab Turbo, have you. "huge lag"? Maybe in 1978...
>> Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
>> other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
>> provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
>> SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
>> than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
>
> Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that
> easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
Ah, so you _are_ talking about something you haven't driven. "Well, the
engineers at Audi couldn't figure it out, so Saab must not have either"?,
is that your thinking?
>> All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
>> designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
>
> And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round.
> Their smoothness alone qualifies.
Please compare and contrast to, say, the 2.3Liter Turbo engine from Saab.
Show your sources. (hint: flat is flat). For extra credit, show the
shift points as they relate to the torque curve, per RPM.
Dave Hinz
>
>
(someone wrote, but JP trimmed the address of,)
>> SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
>> similar displacement.
>
> If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will
> always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW
> engines.
I've never seen the word "thrash" in a scientific analysis of engine output
and fuel consumption. Perhaps you can point us to, you know, actual data
to back up your claim?
>> The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP
> and
>> torque than the BMW.
>
> And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on
> acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
You've never driven a Saab Turbo, have you. "huge lag"? Maybe in 1978...
>> Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
>> other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
>> provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
>> SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
>> than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
>
> Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that
> easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
Ah, so you _are_ talking about something you haven't driven. "Well, the
engineers at Audi couldn't figure it out, so Saab must not have either"?,
is that your thinking?
>> All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
>> designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
>
> And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round.
> Their smoothness alone qualifies.
Please compare and contrast to, say, the 2.3Liter Turbo engine from Saab.
Show your sources. (hint: flat is flat). For extra credit, show the
shift points as they relate to the torque curve, per RPM.
Dave Hinz
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
Boys, boys, this has turned into a pissing competition...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cjb0a053s1rfdvdovs5h280r7gicv3umq7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:22:28 +0200, "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> >> efficient (petrol),
> >
> >I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
engines
> >available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven
more
> >efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an
argument
> >under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
> >6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine,
because
> >of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance.
> [snipped]
>
> If the above isn't the victim of a typo, I invite you to take a look at
the
> torque vs rpm curves of biturbo 30v 2.7L audi engines and any straight-six
NA
> bmw engine you care to examine.
>
> Clearly, you will be surprised...
>
> /daytripper
> '00 s4 6spd
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cjb0a053s1rfdvdovs5h280r7gicv3umq7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:22:28 +0200, "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> >> efficient (petrol),
> >
> >I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
engines
> >available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven
more
> >efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an
argument
> >under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
> >6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine,
because
> >of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance.
> [snipped]
>
> If the above isn't the victim of a typo, I invite you to take a look at
the
> torque vs rpm curves of biturbo 30v 2.7L audi engines and any straight-six
NA
> bmw engine you care to examine.
>
> Clearly, you will be surprised...
>
> /daytripper
> '00 s4 6spd
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They are
top sellers:
http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_n...ngen_2003.html
In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Peter Bozz" <fake-user@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a0a053$0$575$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >
> > For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> > efficient (petrol), although they do have some fine diesels, probably
the
> > best. But then if you don't like diesels, you're stuck. And the BMW
servicing
> > indicator must be a nuisance if you do your own servicing? I always have
an
> > image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of
thing.
>
> Are they too common, or do you simply notice them more than other cars?
> Do a fun experiment and count the cars passing by on the freeway. Then
> provide some figures. I can't speak for other countries, but in the
> Netherlands
> you'd lose count of the Peugeots, VWs, Fords and Opels before you count
> a couple of BMWs. Yet, I *see* more BMWs (or expensive Mercs and Audis)
> simply because they stand out more in traffic.
>
> Same thing for the "Get out of my way" thing: a Golf or Peugeot that's
> being pushy on the freeway would leave a less lasting impression on you
> than that one shiny BMW.
>
> I can't remember all the Renaults and Volvos and VW driving up to my
> tailgate,
> probably thinking, "yeah, I'm gonna show this BMW my car's
> better/faster/whatever".
> Very occasionally I see a BMW or an A3 do the same. Yet *those* times I
can
> remember.
>
> People see what they wanna see.
>
> Peter
>
top sellers:
http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_n...ngen_2003.html
In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Peter Bozz" <fake-user@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a0a053$0$575$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >
> > For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> > efficient (petrol), although they do have some fine diesels, probably
the
> > best. But then if you don't like diesels, you're stuck. And the BMW
servicing
> > indicator must be a nuisance if you do your own servicing? I always have
an
> > image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of
thing.
>
> Are they too common, or do you simply notice them more than other cars?
> Do a fun experiment and count the cars passing by on the freeway. Then
> provide some figures. I can't speak for other countries, but in the
> Netherlands
> you'd lose count of the Peugeots, VWs, Fords and Opels before you count
> a couple of BMWs. Yet, I *see* more BMWs (or expensive Mercs and Audis)
> simply because they stand out more in traffic.
>
> Same thing for the "Get out of my way" thing: a Golf or Peugeot that's
> being pushy on the freeway would leave a less lasting impression on you
> than that one shiny BMW.
>
> I can't remember all the Renaults and Volvos and VW driving up to my
> tailgate,
> probably thinking, "yeah, I'm gonna show this BMW my car's
> better/faster/whatever".
> Very occasionally I see a BMW or an A3 do the same. Yet *those* times I
can
> remember.
>
> People see what they wanna see.
>
> Peter
>